There’s also levels to censorship, like the chilling effect the other commenter noted.

Apple, evidently, does not want you to say these things. They can’t outright ban phrases due to optics, so they do this instead.

▲

kayodelycaon 19 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s the other way around. Apple don’t want to suggest offensive phases and have it look like they wants you to say those things.

The middle ground here is to not suggest anything at all. Because they’re either pushing people to say something or preventing them from saying something.

The HN crowd forgets that average people don’t know how technology works. Everyone I know would see this as a good feature.

▲

ftchd 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Give them the same position as the people who implemented that feature and it would most likely come out worse.

▲

docmars 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This should be a preference then, just like in video games where profanity can either be shown or hidden in multiplayer chats. Then it makes the user aware this exists as a feature and gives them control over it.

My rule of thumb in software is: if there's enough of a dispute on how something should work, it should probably turn into a preference available to users. It's adds scope, but it respects user choice in places where it matters.

	▲	ftchd 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Building software long enough I've realized that the valuable part is your vision of it. The opinionated part. There's no toggle to allow p0rn in the app store, and that's good. We can argue about user choice, but undeniably even if such a toggle existed, more users would fall into addiction. Environment matters more than "self control" or "discipline". I agree with you (on certain types of software), and I also don't see Apple as the be-all and end-all or assume that its opinions are always right. This is just my opinion based on my lived experience, both as a user and as an engineer.